Why the Anchor-Putt Debate Is Back

The USGA Expected Some Blowback When It Moved to Change the Rule. It Got a Lot

ENLARGE

Keegan Bradley, with his long putter in Hawaii in January. His will likely be outlawed; for amateurs, maybe not.
Associated Press

By

John Paul Newport

Feb. 22, 2013 6:09 p.m. ET

The U.S. Golf Association has a brewing revolt on its hands. When it announced in November a proposal to ban anchored putting, effective in 2016, there was predictably a lot of grumbling. "Over my dead body!" was the sentiment of many practitioners, among them former yippers and golfers with bad backs, who have grown dependent on the anchored stroke and the long belly or broomstick putters that go with it.

In the last few weeks, as the USGA's three-month comment period about the proposal winds toward its Feb. 28 conclusion, that grumbling has become more full-throated. Mark King, the chief executive of equipment maker TaylorMade, called the ban "idiotic" and predicted that the USGA could be "obsolete" within five years. PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem has talked openly for the first time about the possibility of bifurcation, or two sets of rules in golf, one for recreational players and another for the pros.

With all the heat, there is also confusion and misperception. Herewith, some answers to questions readers may have:

Aren't these comment periods pro forma? Is there any chance the USGA will actually change its mind?

Never before has the USGA, and its sister international rules-making body, the R&A, opened up a comment period for a proposed "playing rule." The rules makers commonly do so for equipment regulations. In at least five cases since 2001, they have modified a rule in response to comments. Playing rules, however, are typically so minor and "inside baseball"—an example from last year is the tweak that eliminates the penalty if the wind moves a ball after a player has addressed it—that the rules makers felt comment periods were not necessary. This case is unique because the ban would take away a stroke that tens of thousands of people world-wide already use. And yes, it is at least conceivable that the USGA might modify the proposal (see below).

Is there one core reason why so many are up in arms?

Most who oppose the ban argue that it simply wasn't necessary. In recreational play, no more than 10% to 20% of players use an anchored stroke, and no hard evidence exists that the stroke is an inherent advantage, as opposed to merely a personal preference. Some manufacturers, such as King at TaylorMade and John Solheim, the boss at Ping, have said they fear the ban will drive customers from the game; they would also like to sell more long putters. Many club pros see the ban as a nuisance. They believe many committed anchor putters will ignore the ban, creating problems at club tournaments and in running a fair handicap system. In a survey of PGA club and teaching pros, 63% were against the ban.

Remind me again why the USGA wants to ban anchored putting.

Officially because it does not consider a stroke with the butt end of the club pressed against the chest or belly, creating a fulcrum, to be a genuine golf stroke. The USGA argues that, as an independent body without vested financial interests, it wants to preserve the traditional golf stroke in the long-term interests of the game. When he announced the proposal in November, Mike Davis, the USGA's executive director, said regulators do not buy into the claim that significant numbers of golfers will leave the game, or fail to take it up, if they can't anchor-putt. Skill and challenge are what draw people to golf, Davis said; time and expense, not difficulty, are the main reasons they leave. Many golfers (including me) agree. A survey of 1,766 committed golfers by Golf Datatech found that, of those with an opinion, 2 to 1 favor the ban.

Anchored putting is decades old. Why ban it now?

Because it's catching on. Three of the last five major winners (Keegan Bradley,Webb Simpson and Ernie Els) putted anchor-style, and amateurs are following suit. "The difference now is we are seeing golfers who no longer see this as a stroke of last resort," Davis said. The possibility, claimed by some, that anchoring is more efficient and might someday supplant traditional putting spurred the regulators to act against a stroke that it never felt was entirely cricket but chose to ignore when it was used by so few. "This is all about the future of the game. It's about us defining the game, defining a stroke, clarifying a very controversial and divisive situation," Davis said.

Speaking of the Tour, where does it stand, given that so many of its stars anchor-putt?

"Make it go away" probably best describes Commissioner Finchem's attitude. The players themselves are divided. Tiger Woods and Brandt Snedeker, among others, strongly support the ban. Longtime anchor putters like Tim Clark and Carl Pettersson, among others, are strongly opposed. Finchem hates the divisiveness and distraction the proposal has stirred up, and reportedly prevailed on the Tour's player policy board, which met Monday, to write a letter to the USGA expressing the Tour's opposition. Should the USGA finalize the ban, the Tour might go along, perhaps even moving up compliance to the start of next season to put the distraction behind it. But it could take the unprecedented step of breaking with USGA rules and allowing anchored putting at its events. That would usher in a royal mess. First, because amateurs would have even more reason to defy the ban, further undermining the USGA's authority. Second, because the Tour's anchorers would almost certainly not be allowed to putt that way in the U.S. Open and the British Open, sponsored by the USGA and the R&A, respectively, and the Masters, which usually follows the USGA's lead.

How will this end?

A spokesman for the USGA said that it and the R&A will ponder the comments and take "final action" sometime this spring. If the ban is approved without change, the Tour, the PGA of America and everyday players will have to decide, individually, whether to continue anchored putting after Jan. 1, 2016. Given the uproar, however, regulators could come up with creative modifications. For instance, it could provide for a "condition of competition" that allows clubs or local tournaments the option of allowing anchored putting, perhaps for a specified number of years, like 10, or somehow grandfathering in current practitioners. Such a condition has never been provided to circumvent a playing rule, only for such things as limiting equipment in elite competitions and as a response to weather (lift, clean and place). But extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary measures.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.